tamba

" I do believe an industry should take every opportunity to make a dangerous tool as safe as possible. I commend the guy who invented a tool that will save fingers from being removed in an accident. If the other tool companies would have followed SawStops lead, this accident and many others could have been avoided."

I believe the implication is a technology exists that could have saved Carlos from himself. Thus Ryobi is liable due to neglect.

The blade guard was removed, a technology that helps prevent loss of digits. The ripfence was removed, a technology that helps prevents kickback and loss of digits. And yet they were removed. So if Ryobi indeed had incorporated the flesh sensing technology and someone disables it, by this juries logic, Ryobi would still be responsible!!!

When you alter the design and intent of safety features of an inherently dangerous machine and then show patent ignorance in its use, it is my opinion that you should not be awarded 6 times more than you asked for in a lawsuit!!!

If this suit becomes a precedent setting case, why would anyone build and sell a tablesaw??